[lojban-beginners] Re: leaving a sumti out

["Turniansky, Michael [UNK]" <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com>]

  I respectfully disputer your interpretation of go'i, Adam.  From the
CRG, Chapter 7:

"6.9)   mi klama le zarci .i do go'i
    I go-to the store.  You [repeat last bridi].
    I go to the store.  You, too.

Note that Example 6.9 means the same as Example 5.6, but without the
bother of assigning an actual broda-series word to the first bridi. "

  What is example 5.6?

"5.6)  mi klama cei brode le zarci .i do brode
    I go-to (which-is claim-1) the store.  You claim-1
    I go to the store.  You, too.

In the second bridi, ``do brode'' means ``do klama le zarci'', because
``brode'' carries the x2 sumti of ``mi klama le zarci'' along with it.
It also potentially carries the x1 sumti as well, but the explicit x1
sumti ``do'' overrides the ``mi'' of the antecedent bridi. (Similarly,
any tense or negation that is present in the antecedent is also carried,
and can be overridden by explicit tense or negation cmavo on the
pro-bridi.)"


  Note the use of the word "override".  The places are replaced, not
added to.

            --gejyspa


-----Original Message-----
From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
[mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Adam D.
Lopresto
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:13 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: leaving a sumti out

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Vid Sintef wrote:

> A sentence from Lojban Reference Grammar Chapter9:
> 
> la djan. klama le zarci .i la djan. go'i troci
> 
> Can "la djan" in the second sentence be left out since "go'i" should
imply
> all sumti related to the selbri of the last sentence?

Sort of.  {go'i} does carry over all the sumti, but it carries them
attached
to the {go'i}.  That is, in

la .djan. klama le zarci
.i go'i troci

The latter bridi is equivalent not to {.i la .djan. klama be le zarci
be'o
troci}, but to {.i klama be fa la .djan. bei le zarci be'o troci}.

In fact, in the example given, the second sentence is actually
equivalent to
{.i la .djan. klama be fa la .djan. bei le zarci be'o troci}, where John
is
the x1 of both klama and troci.

> Also, can a repeating "ko" be left out, without connecting the selbri
with
> "gi'e"?
> That is, is
> 
> ko lebna ta .i dunda lo cnino vanju botpi mi
> 
> instead of
> 
> ko lebna ta .i ko dunda lo cnino vanju botpi mi
> 
> possible? Or would that "dunda" without "ko" loose the intended
imperative
> sense?

It's certainly possible, in that it's grammatical and legal.  But
without
specifying the x1 of {dunda}, you're leaving it implicit.  So I don't
think
it would normally be considered an implicit imperative, unless context
were
overwhelming.  
-- 
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to *buy* her friends?